Today, 10 April 2008 president Bush addressed the nation on the Iraq War. I will provide a video link in the case you missed it and will locate a transcript of the speech once it is available. In the speech he clearly outlines his view of how the conflict stands and addresses his opposition to those running for his job from the Democratic Party. He warns Iran of consequences if it continues to hamper peace in the region in no uncertain terms and bundles them together with Al Qaeda. View the speech here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24049888#24049888 You can also visit http://www.Whitehouse.gov and click on the Iraq link to get daily updates on the administration's position. Hopefully a hard copy transcript of the speech will be available there in the upcoming days.

The questions for debate are:

Will this very nicely crafted speech impact the voter and bring the Iraq War back into discussion in the 08 race?

How can Clinton and Obama refute the facts that president Bush laid out in the speech?

Will congress provide the funding for the war without strings attached as the president demands?

Will this very nicely crafted speech impact the voter and bring the Iraq War back into discussion in the 08 race?

Nicely crafted speech? Um, sure, I guess? Oh yeah it will be up for discussion, since, you know, the whole thing is a a cluster-you-know-what. Iran already has more influence and prestige in Iraq than the US- and is much more welcome than we are- what magic wand does he have to change this? I wonder if this guy is still on the crack pipe.


How can Clinton and Obama refute the facts that president Bush laid out in the speech?

Um, with real facts? Duh? Just read the "surge in Iraq" thread to see how silly the white house dot org site is. Can get alot more relevant fact on whitehouse dot com instead- at least there are nekkid wimmens!


Will congress provide the funding for the war without strings attached as the president demands?

Lord, I hope not- it seems we are starting to see the "dissident" republicans show some backbone- it is time that the dems held firm with those 'pubs, and stick it where the sun don't shine to the crappiest president in the last 100 years.

Lets see- we have a "pause" in the "surge" now-

DR said it best "Losers move the goalposts, winners move the chains"- we haven't moved the chains in 4 years now.

Let's be clear- there is NO PROGRESS IN IRAQ since our invasion- none, zip, nada. The people of Iraq are far worse off under US occupation than Saddam's rule.

How low do we have to go? Is there even a place to bottom out at this point>

First I would like you to take my challenge in the Worst President in US history thread in the General Political Debate in my post today.

I would ask what would Obama/Clinton do or will they do about Iran or for that matter the ME if they were in charge? Blaming Bush after Bush is gone will get old on the 21st of Jan. 09. They will need answers to the greater problem.

Facts are facts and the majority of Americans desire victory in Iraq and not withdraw with failure. There are a lot of in between's but it requires some explanations of how their actions will result in a better outcome. If Iraq turns to crap in 09 with a Democratic president then they won't get a pass although I don't think they have a chance of that happening at this point.

I bet the Democrats will pass the funding with little debate and even leave the pork out as ordered.

Presidential transcripts are available almost immediately on www.whitehouse.gov.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20080410-2.html

Will this very nicely crafted speech impact the voter and bring the Iraq War back into discussion in the 08 race?

Whether this speech was "nicely crafted" or just another pack of lies, is an opinion. It most surely will bring back the war as an issue to the detriment of John McCain. The bond of trust between George W. Bush and a majority of people has been broken. With that breaking has come dislike. I think most people will see this speech as "here we go again."

How can Clinton and Obama refute the facts that president Bush laid out in the speech.

What specific facts are you talking about. Please list. If we wait a few hours, I am sure both Obama and Clinton will respond to the speech. Then we won't have to guess.

Will congress provide the funding for the war without strings attached as the president demands?

I don't think that will happen, at least not until Bush vetoes another bill. The real purpose of this speech was to kick the can down the road ten months and let Bush's replacement. It's all about legacy and I don't think Bush's is going to be very good.

The video of the speech is also available on C-SPAN. I hope that link works, it's a RealPlayer format.

here

Nope, it doesn't work. Time for a comment and suggestion to Mike.
Aquilla

Try this.

Link.

Will this very nicely crafted speech impact the voter and bring the Iraq War back into discussion in the 08 race?

It never left the 08 race and Dems have no intension of letting it. Recently the economic issues are far more to their benefit.

How can Clinton and Obama refute the facts that president Bush laid out in the speech?

Confuse the issue and redirect the conversation. As they have been doing. When the “benchmarks” were yet to be met that was “the issue” and the “problem” and we had to threaten immediate pull out as a way of ‘pushing” the Iraqi government. Now that 2/3 have been met and one poll showed on 18% of Americans agreed with the pull out now strategy we are on to the cost. Any reason to they can think of to force a defeat or make supporters look bad, which will, they feel, secure them the WH is on the agenda.

Will congress provide the funding for the war without strings attached as the president demands?

The Dems have learned the hard way they cannot pull it off and it will not happen – much to the chagrin of MoveON and the left wing of the Party.

Thanks for the link to the transcript.

Oh I don't think the majority of the people will see here we go again, most people are settling into the fact that here and now situation as it comes to the war. Regardless whom is elected as president the folks realize it can go in directions that could be very bad for America. I think most serious people look at the generals, state department and the president's words carefully and evaluate them against the direction of the candidates desiring the Commander in Chief position. Most of the president's position is supported by state department and the commander on the ground as for the administrations position. For the candidates, it's really difficult for them to discuss or debate the war because they're so many variables and no news agency is up to the bar to have the detailed debate it would take to discuss the different variables.

The specifics:

Do the candidates agree or disagree and why or why not?

This position makes logic since we are in an election cycle, not because it will allow a sharp draw down just before the election but a strong fighting force should the enemy decide to make a last ditch effort to sway the election in America. One must also consider they will be having elections during that same period.

All candidates supporting the opposite should state exactly why they state so.

Where do the candidates stand on this issue of Iran?

Candidates should refute this if they do not agree.

These are but some talking points that should be part of the public debate between the candidates and the people that should be addressed.

Questions like, what would be your position if Israel were to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities should be addressed, or don't you think so?

About funding, I think the Democrats will fund the war with little debate, but spend much of their time talking about domestic issues and the cost of war. They will probably tack on an extension of unemployment benefits and call it a success and something Obama will fix in the new administration.

If you are a responsible politician, answering this question is not a viable option. Foreign Policy cannot be conducted by the media, despite whatever notions the current administration holds.

Lets take your exact question. You're essentially asking the politician in question to pick a side in what could turn into a Nuclear conflict. Do you honestly think that's a good idea? The reason why politicians remain vague about Foreign Policy is precisely to avoid that appearance; it drastically reduces their ability to maneuvre and achieve their own Foreign Policy objectives.

Perhaps my question may be too direct but Senator Obama's position on Israel and Iraq are ambiguous. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran and http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/ He will draw down troops in Iraq and conduct regional diplomacy, but why should Iran want to play his game? Iran has been sending serious weaponry to Hezbollah under the nose of the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon. Israel has been conducting war drills in civilian communities and reading armed forces for war over the last few weeks indicating tension is growing as our election cycle grows closer. On the 22nd of this month there will be a regional conference in Kuwait and I would guess that the US will be represented so I see little difference in what is happening now and what will happen if Obama is in office other than not knowing if he will provide military support to Israel or will he simply dispatch additional state department personnel to listen to Iran deny that they have any connection with hostilities in Iraq or Lebanon? I think the reason the surge draw-down will be paused is to have a large force in Iraq when the Democratic nominee is selected because they may decide to have a two prong strategy to strike Iraq and Israel with Iranian soldiers/weapons without the benefit of uniforms that tie them to Iran. Make it bloody, lots of US casualties to move any support for McCain away in the national media. Then in January if Obama were elected they would strike in earnest against Israel and Iraq to assure a US withdraw as remembered in Vietnam.

Israel will not wait to see if Obama is all talk and they will not wait to be destroyed by Iran. We have the right to know in advance where Obama or any other candidate stands should different scenarios take place.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...mment-116535128